(that’ll be the government then, for preventing access to any form of justice for most people by denying legal aid to almost anyone needing it )
The Legal Aid System and Access to Justice as Explained in a Letter to My Legal Aid Lawyer, who is unlikely ever to actually work for me at all in fact.
Dear Legal Aid Lawyer
Concerning the matter of my buy to let landlord wishing to evict me within just two months so he can sell his house, my apologies for being unable to return the enclosed forms earlier as I was unable to do so.
Enclosed are all the forms duly filled in, together with a copy of my bank statement as requested.
The Judge in the case was persuaded to provide the maximum extension of 42 days, thereby ordering possession by the end of the month.
There are grounds for setting it aside and/or appealing. for reasons given below.
When the landlord stated his case he unequivocally stated to the judge that:
a) the property had initially been specifically let on the understanding it would be let semi-permanently and for the foreseeable future so as to specifically enable me to wait on the social housing list long enough to reach the top and be allocated social housing, providing only that I fulfilled the usual tenancy obligations. This being the case it was agreed the shorthold tenancy would be continuously renewed until I obtained social housing.
b) When the landlord stated he wished to live in the house himself and gave me notice accordingly in 2013, he then changed his mind about five days before I was due to move out, informing me that he now intended to live in London and would never wish to live in this property. He specifically further verbally agreed that I could continued to live in the property as long as I wished i.e. long enough for me to finally obtain social housing seen to be about three or four years on a waiting list.
I did actually make an audio recording of this, but this is now entirely unnecessary as evidence because the landlord himself stated all this to the Judge on June 18th. This is recorded by the Court on a tape and a transcript is available on demand from the court for a fee.
This transcript would provide clear evidence that a unequivocal contract had been made in 2013 which entirely altered the terms of any previous shorthold tenancy agreement. This would consequently enable me to remain in the property long enough to obtain social housing – a matter of weeks only.
It was quite clear to me the Judge was aware of this possibility in his judgement. However, the Judge had interrupted me before I was able to properly make clear that I wished to hold the landlord to this contract to extend the date of possession by just a short amount beyond 42 days because I am now absolutely at the top of the housing list and will be allocated social housing virtually any day now.
I am aware that the Judge would not normally be able to extend a period beyond 42 days, but the existence of the contract changes that completely.
It seemed to me the Judge deliberately fudged his judgement stating that In my own evidence to the court I had ‘kindly’ made the statement that the verbal contract was ‘vague’ and on that basis it enabled the judge to just ignore it and hope I wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. He would know that is the situation most LIP’s find themselves in as Judges have expressed their irritation at the indignity of dealing with woffling LIP’s and most Judges tend to treat them with some contempt and steamroller them in a way that is impossible with a good lawyer. And Judges get away with it all the time too.
It seemed clear this was intended to mean that my efforts as a litigant in person, and being clueless on how to present a case, meant I did not stick precisely to just quoting the relevant law of contract as as a Barrister would, but of course I woffled a bit as I am not a lawyer & went off at a tangent about a landlord having a moral duty to behave reasonably regardless of the law saying a tenant can be casually evicted at just two months notice.
This is clearly crass in any circumstances – as most people agree.
I think this is when the Judge just cut me off dead and commenced to make his judgement as he wished to steamroller over me and not have to deal with a more complicated case. And after the conclusion of the proceedings when the landlord had made quite an unusual & unacceptable outburst to the Judge & literally stormed off in a rage, he made a comment to me about keeping to the law as though I would know that I did have a case to uphold that contract which the landlord himself had clearly outlined to the Judge.
It appears to me that the judge failed to follow the proper court procedures he is obliged by law to follow and his failure to allow me to fully make my defence and his failure to admit the contract which he himself alluded to in his judgement, are grounds for setting this case aside or appealing, whichever is the most appropriate.
It occurred to me the judge thought I might know I could appeal and so some other court could deal with that longer case as this judge was purely focussed on this being a typical ten minute case and he just didn’t want to bother with anything requiring a bit more intellectual effort & time. It might have played havoc with the afternoon’s list of other cases he wanted to get through on autopilot.
It is unlawful to deprive a litigant in person of proper access to justice by means of a Judge arbitrarily cutting off a LIP merely because an LIP cannot present a case in the legal format a lawyer has been trained to do and so preventing an LIP from standing a cat’s chance in hell of obtaining the proper justice a trained lawyer could.
It so happens I have experienced a much more viciously corrupt example four years ago when I was trying to appeal against my lender’s eviction of me and as I was telling the relevant ‘story’ of the mortgage situation whereby I said the lender had acted fraudulently, which they absolutely had (it was a Lehman’s subsidiary – what else would you expect ?) The judge said ‘don’t spoil what is a very good case by making allegations of fraud …..”, he then went red in the face as he realised he had made a fundamental error & repeated word for word but omitting ‘is’ & substituting it with the word ‘may’. He then proceeded to interrupt me twice more finally telling me to ‘get on with it’ (despite me speaking for only about five minutes) and on this final interruption and me saying I was now ‘at a loss as to what I was allowed to say’ he contemptuously turned to the other side to request their rebuttal.
Of course I didn’t stand a chance as a Litigant In Person and as a consequence I was evicted by bailiffs the following day – such is the charm of the lack of access to justice and it’s consequential support of every con-man and fraudster, thief or corrupt government official acting unlawfully against a population completely unable to defend itself against them and obtain justice of any sort.
I absolutely know that if the above case had been properly brought with a good barrister and solicitor building the case, they would have made mincemeat of the lender and the entire mortgage nullified, probably. I still intend doing something about it.
In this current case of my eviction there obviously appears to be a case to make that a contract obviously exists and can be proved and it nullifies the shorthold tenancy etc and that the court would have been able to act accordingly.
I was wrongly prevented from properly making my case by the judge cutting me off in mid case. I wasn’t really woffling. As an ex-journalist and public relations consultant working directly for board members of the very largest of businesses, I am quite used to making coherent presentations. However, I am aware that lawyers are specifically trained not to use ordinary language and to eliminate every possible word that does not directly relate to the statements of pure law and legislation.
This often makes for legal presentations that it is not at all possible for a layman to even comprehend. Therefore as a LIP it is absolutely wrong of a judge to behave in the manner I have described. I am sure it is actually unlawful as well as being just downright uncivilised as no law requires a LIP to use anything other than plain English rather than legalspeak and legal citations he cannot possibly have any knowledge of.
– In view of the evidence conveniently available on the court tape, I would like to apply to have the case set aside because it was not properly conducted by the judge who appeared to unlawfully prevent me from properly or adequately making the defence I intended as shown by his abrupt interruption and failure to ask if I had completed my defence.
– Alternatively to appeal the Judge’s decision as it cannot have been properly founded owing to an incomplete defence and the judge failing to properly consider whether a contract superseding the shorthold existed and what the nature of it might be, or what proper order the court might have made had consideration to this contract been given.
I am guessing that I may be out of time and therefore I would have to ask for permission to appeal etc out of time and for the following reasons.
The reason I am out of time is I have been unable to do anything about it owing to illness, and when I telephoned my local County Court to try and file an appeal (it is no longer possible to go there to make enquiries etc as the office counter has been closed, leaving the public to deal with the court mostly by telepathy) they told my they have been told not to tell members of the public anything such as what period of time they have to appeal or even to tell them what form to ask for to fill in for an appeal or make any application to court.
In other words the court office was deliberately obstructive in preventing me at that time from finding the right form to fill out and providing me with it for me to file it at the court to try and ensure I filed an appeal in time.
This is ridiculous and just willfully obstructive behaviour by the courts and Ministry of Justice which has the effect of making it deliberately difficult or impossible to make the relevant applications to courts in order to achieve justice, as no member of the public can deal with any court procedures or associated legal issues or cases without acquiring the same detailed knowledge of the law as lawyers by embarking upon a legal degree at a university to gain access to the relevant knowledge.
Clearly a ridiculous concept. And that is why the public pays lawyers to deal with legal issues. It is not possible for every member of the public to embark on years of legal studies to gain the necessary knowledge to deal with their own cases. That is why Lawyers study for years to obtain the legal knowledge which the lay public can then pay the lawyers to use their legal knowledge for the benefit of the lay non-legally trained public.
Paid Lawyers exist only because years of legal studies are required to properly deal with any legal issues, all of which are defined by millions of legal rules, procedures and legislations and previous court cases, all of which knowledge no ordinary member of the public can possibly understand, or even have access to so much as a law library to look it up; and even then would mostly be unable to even understand how to look up or comprehend much of the legal language, particularly the many Latin bits like mens rea & dolli incapax or ipse dixit (he said it ! ) etc.
Expecting the lay public to be able to have the adequate legal knowledge and ability to deal with their own legal issues is as ignorant and as stupid and as dangerous as expecting the entire lay public to spend sufficient years studying medicine to enable them to administer their own required medical treatments to themselves.
But I can’t help noticing that is exactly what is now beginning to happen in the derisive National Health Service too as it too, is becoming too busy going round in bureaucratic circles instead of treating patients and too dis-interested in bothering to provide proper, professional medical care to the public who are often completely refused any care at all or fobbed off with incompetent doctors and particularly disgustingly incompetent dentists.
This then is the nature of this idiot Government we have elected. Nasty, divisive uncaring and brutal.